Dinah won't U blow yur horn

[jackal]

Also, I'm interested in talking about what's right, not what's legal. All too often those things diverge. We should fix the law, not use a broken law to justify a conclusion.

But everyone here fails to see that anything is indeed broken.

As far as the law goes, zephyr17 outlined the legal basis against your argument (at least in 49 of the 50 states). There is no support for your claim that anything the railroad does violates anyone's [legal] property rights.

As far as "what's right," well, the railroad is clearly in the right (according to everybody but you)--they've been around forever, and it's the responsibility of the individuals who move near the railroad tracks to accept the pre-existing noise. The railroad is doing no wrong. If the residents don't like it, they can follow the federally-mandated procedures to establish quiet zones (quad-gate crossings, Jersey barriers, focused horns, grade-separated crossings).

Your entire argument seems hinged on some false notion of property rights. If you'd like to clarify exactly on what REAL basis you object to trains blowing their horns to follow both federal regulations and to maximize safety, please do so.

 

[tp49]

But everyone here fails to see that anything is indeed broken.
As far as the law goes, zephyr17 outlined the legal basis against your argument (at least in 49 of the 50 states). There is no support for your claim that anything the railroad does violates anyone's [legal] property rights.

One thing I think should be mentioned is that in cases where the railroad was the original grantor of the land I would bet that they preserved some sort of protection for themselves in the deed itself either through a covenant running with the land or by easement.

I've mentioned in this thread that they have a potential action for nuisance. However, one of the factors that will be looked at is whether the interference with the use of the affected parcel including whether the plaintiff "came to" or "moved to" the nuisance.

I've also mentioned in a previous post that since the feds have established procedures for localities to enact quiet zones that could follow the procedures or in the alternative eliminate grade crossings either by bridges, tunnels or elevating the tracks.

It should too be noted that if a regulation were enacted to require a railroad to obtain easements from each property owner within a certain radius from the tracks that a court would most likely strike the regulation down as unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause as surely a regulation of that type would be unduly burdensome to interstate commerce.

The kicker was the response made to one of my posts here

As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.

Why should a municipality have to bear the costs of an organization or individual affecting others' properties without permission? It's like suggesting that the guy outside is perfectly right to fire a gun toward peoples' homes, and the municipality should probably get to work putting up bullet proof sheeting along the fence lines.

Then says this here...

And, of course, there's always eminent domain: if it's important enough to the community that the trains disturb people, the community always has the option of using eminent domain to force the sale of easements to allow the whistling. At the moment, though, we only have devalued property without any cost to the violators.

If the government were going to use eminent domain for that purpose the government would be required to pay "just compensation" to the property owner forced to sell the easement. This would fall under the 5th Amendment's "Takings Clause." It would also certainly subject the government to years of very costly litigation which the government very well could lose. When compared with my suggestion of grade crossing elimination considering that eliminating the grade crossings would eliminate the need for use of the horn except for emergencies.

In the end this would not only be cheaper but shovel ready public works projects were receiving federal stimulus money. Net benefit if stimulus funds could be procured to pay for it the local government would not have to pay for it and some new jobs might be generated as well. Win for the residents, win for the railroad, win for the community as a whole. That's a whole lot of win.

 

[the Other Mike]

I vote for steam whistles to replace the horns !

 

[zephyr17]

By common law standard

I'm from Louisiana; we laugh at your common law

Also, I'm interested in talking about what's right, not what's legal. All too often those things diverge. We should fix the law, not use a broken law to justify a conclusion.

Well, to be more precise, I'm not really interested in talking about it more. As I said before, I'm happy to let this thread die since I think all that needs to be said has been said. If you guys want to take that as some admission of defeat it won't bother me.

I just thought I'd clarify some things for a couple of new looking people who showed up late and didn't really seem to see what my position was. Again, I'm fine with someone honestly disagreeing with my position; I'd just like to for them to actually know what they're disagreeing with.

I call bullsh*t.

Property rights are nothing if not a legal concept. You argue on the basis of legal rights, then back off to your own little "Planet volkris" when challenged. You claim that you gain some legitimacy in your argument that Louisiana law is based on Napoleonic Code, not common law (everything defined in statute, not court precedent) is laughable. OK, show me the Louisana statute law (not common, but statute law per Napoleonic Code) that says railroads should pay current property owners for rights given up by the previous owners.

You are apparently both for the application of some "natural law" of your own devising at the same time as you argue that statute law (per Napoleonic Code, the only valid law is law that is promolgated by a legislature) is the only valid law AT THE SAME TIME.

And when cornered, you say you just want the thread to die.

Weak, man. Just weak.

 

[the Other Mike]

By common law standard

I'm from Louisiana; we laugh at your common law

Also, I'm interested in talking about what's right, not what's legal. All too often those things diverge. We should fix the law, not use a broken law to justify a conclusion.

Well, to be more precise, I'm not really interested in talking about it more. As I said before, I'm happy to let this thread die since I think all that needs to be said has been said. If you guys want to take that as some admission of defeat it won't bother me.

I just thought I'd clarify some things for a couple of new looking people who showed up late and didn't really seem to see what my position was. Again, I'm fine with someone honestly disagreeing with my position; I'd just like to for them to actually know what they're disagreeing with.

I call bullsh*t.

Property rights are nothing if not a legal concept. You argue on the basis of legal rights, then back off to your own little "Planet volkris" when challenged. You claim that you gain some legitimacy in your argument that Louisiana law is based on Napoleonic Code, not common law (everything defined in statute, not court precedent) is laughable. OK, show me the Louisana statute law (not common, but statute law per Napoleonic Code) that says railroads should pay current property owners for rights given up by the previous owners.

You are apparently both for the application of some "natural law" of your own devising at the same time as you argue that statute law (per Napoleonic Code, the only valid law is law that is promolgated by a legislature) is the only valid law AT THE SAME TIME.

And when cornered, you say you just want the thread to die.

Weak, man. Just weak.

He claims Louisiana but his info on the post says Newport News. I'm IN louisiana and been here for 52 0f my 53 years. He doesn't speak like someone from Louisiana unless he's one of those who voted for Edwin Edwards. If that is the case, to him, he makes perfect sense.

 

[the Other Mike]

I agree mow, remove all horns from trains.

Beef up all the auto horns

 

[DET63]

Trains do not exist, either primarily or secondarily, to entertain foamers, fans, their own crews, or the investors in the railroad companies. They exist to move passengers and freight, and are thus an important part of the nation's—indeed the world's—transportation infrastructure. The more they are able to do so safely, the better they are able to serve their customers. The comparison to a garage band practicing loudly at 2:00 is weak. The garage band is serving to entertain itself, or perhaps practicing to entertain a small group of people. It can practice at a more reasonable hour yet still fulfill its entertainment obligations, such as they may be. Therefore asking the band members to alter their practice or playing schedule puts little burden on them. Asking a railroad company to not operate its trains at night in a certain community, or to pay for enhanced crossing safety devices so that its trains don't have to sound their horns, does create a possibly considerable burden on the railroad company that must be passed on in the form of higher shipping costs, insurance rates, taxes, and/or who-know-what-else.

 

[rodo]

I am wondering if you have noticed the train blowing more often. I have lived at my home for over 5 years and would hear the train maybe once or twice if that. Now I hear it over 5 times a day at early hours (4 am and midnight). What has changed?

 

[Tom Cleveland]

As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.

Why should a municipality have to bear the costs of an organization or individual affecting others' properties without permission? It's like suggesting that the guy outside is perfectly right to fire a gun toward peoples' homes, and the municipality should probably get to work putting up bullet proof sheeting along the fence lines.

No: train horns are specifically designed to be jarring, piercing, and loud. The railroads then project that onto other peoples' properties, in clear violation of fundamental property rights.

Are there rules for how loud the horns have to be? Let's see if they can safely be reduced in decibel level so that they do not disturb so many people so much. I bet that the TGV in France does not make so much noise and hence has better support among the public.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Are there rules for how loud the horns have to be? Let's see if they can safely be reduced in decibel level so that they do not disturb so many people so much. I bet that the TGV in France does not make so much noise and hence has better support among the public.

There sure are rules :

CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

PART 229_RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Safety Requirements

Sec. 229.129 Locomotive horn.

(a) Each lead locomotive shall be equipped with a locomotive horn

that produces a minimum sound level of 96 dB(A) and a maximum sound

level of 110 dB(A) at 100 feet forward of the locomotive in its

direction of travel. The locomotive horn shall be arranged so that it

can be conveniently operated from the engineer's usual position during

operation of the locomotive.

(b)(1) Each locomotive built on or after September 18, 2006 shall be

tested in accordance with this section to ensure that the horn installed

on such locomotive is in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.

Locomotives built on or after September 18, 2006 may, however, be tested

in accordance with an acceptance sampling scheme such that there is a

probability of .05 or less of rejecting a lot with a proportion of

defectives equal to an AQL of 1% or less, as set forth in 7 CFR part 43.

(2) Each locomotive built before September 18, 2006 shall be tested

in accordance with this section before June 24, 2010 to ensure that the

horn installed on such locomotive is in compliance with paragraph (a) of

this section.

(3) Each remanufactured locomotive, as determined pursuant to Sec.

229.5 of this part, shall be tested in accordance with this section to

ensure that the horn installed on such locomotive is in compliance with

paragraph (a).

(4)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section,

each locomotive equipped with a replacement locomotive horn shall be

tested, in accordance with paragraph © of this section, before the

next two annual tests required by Sec. 229.27 of this part are

completed.

(ii) Locomotives that have already been tested individually or

through acceptance sampling, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section, shall not be required to undergo

sound level testing when equipped with a replacement locomotive horn,

provided the replacement locomotive horn is of the same model as the

locomotive horn that was replaced and the mounting location and type of

mounting are the same.

© Testing of the locomotive horn sound level shall be in

accordance with the following requirements:

(1) A properly calibrated sound level meter shall be used that, at a

minimum, complies with the requirements of International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 61672-1 (2002-05) for a Class

2 instrument.

(2) An acoustic calibrator shall be used that, at a minimum,

complies with the requirements of IEC standard 60942 (1997-11) for a

Class 2 instrument.

(3) The manufacturer's instructions pertaining to mounting and

orienting the microphone; positioning of the observer; and periodic

factory recalibration shall be followed.

(4) A microphone windscreen shall be used and tripods or similar

microphone mountings shall be used that minimize

[[Page 441]]

interference with the sound being measured.

(5) The test site shall be free of large reflective structures, such

as barriers, hills, billboards, tractor trailers or other large

vehicles, locomotives or rail cars on adjacent tracks, bridges or

buildings, within 200 feet to the front and sides of the locomotive. The

locomotive shall be positioned on straight, level track.

(6) Measurements shall be taken only when ambient air temperature is

between 32 degrees and 104 degrees Fahrenheit inclusively; relative

humidity is between 20 percent and 95 percent inclusively; wind velocity

is not more than 12 miles per hour and there is no precipitation.

(7) With the exception of cab-mounted or low-mounted horns, the

microphone shall be located 100 feet forward of the front knuckle of the

locomotive, 15 feet above the top of the rail, at an angle no greater

than 20 degrees from the center line of the track, and oriented with

respect to the sound source according to the manufacturer's

recommendations. For cab-mounted and low-mounted horns, the microphone

shall be located 100 feet forward of the front knuckle of the

locomotive, four feet above the top of the rail, at an angle no greater

than 20 degrees from the center line of the track, and oriented with

respect to the sound source according to the manufacturer's

recommendations. The observer shall not stand between the microphone and

the horn.

(8) Background noise shall be minimal: the sound level at the test

site immediately before and after each horn sounding event shall be at

least 10 dB(A) below the level measured during the horn sounding.

(9) Measurement procedures. The sound level meter shall be set for

A-weighting with slow exponential response and shall be calibrated with

the acoustic calibrator immediately before and after compliance tests.

Any change in the before and after calibration levels shall be less than

0.5 dB. After the output from the locomotive horn system has reached a

stable level, the A-weighted equivalent sound level (slow response) for

a 10-second duration (LAeq, 10s) shall be obtained either directly using

an integrating-averaging sound level meter, or recorded once per second

and calculated indirectly. The arithmetic-average of a series of at

least six such 10-second duration readings shall be used to determine

compliance. The standard deviation of the readings shall be less than

1.5 dB.

(10) Written reports of locomotive horn testing required by this

part shall be made and shall reflect horn type; the date, place, and

manner of testing; and sound level measurements. These reports, which

shall be signed by the person who performs the test, shall be retained

by the railroad, at a location of its choice, until a subsequent

locomotive horn test is completed and shall be made available, upon

request, to FRA as provided by 49 U.S.C. 20107.

(d) This section does not apply to locomotives of rapid transit

operations which are otherwise subject to this part.

[71 FR 47666, Aug. 17, 2006]

 

[frequentflyer]

I have been on some trains when the engineer did not give the two short blasts of the horn which signals the train is about to move. Is that normal now. It used to be when at the station, as a pax you could tell when the train was about to depart due to the two blasts...........

 

[Guest]

"And trust me, people will complain about anything. People move next to an Interstate Highway, and then demand noise barriers. People move next to an airport and then demand noise abatement procedures, which leave pilots doing stupid and odd movements while trying to get a plane into the air, like in Chicago. Heck, we've even got people complaining in Tukwila that the new Sound Transit Light Rail trains make a squealing noise. Granted in that case the people came first and the train second, but still, people will complain about anything."

OT, people will buy vacation homes in N. GA next to a chicken house and complain that it stinks. Well, HELLO.

Get this. We live in a county with a tree ordinance (so that doesn't solve it) and about a mile (crow time) from the tracks. My backyard neighbor's house faces in that direction and mine faces in another direction. We both sleep in bedrooms that are on the "track side of the house". Between these 2 houses and the tracks are other houses, a US highway, a shopping center (tracks run behind it) and undulating topography. We can also see Stone Mountain (a monadnock) from our area, to say, there is a huge stone that can bounce sound. As the trees have been thinned between the neighborhood and the tracks and the shopping center built, the train does sound closer. He thinks it's so loud that he says he will never buy a house that close to the tracks. I think he hears the horn louder because he has a wider expanse of house exposed to the sound waves whereas it is only the end of my house exposed. I rarely hear the horn, just a little bit of the rumbling.

One more thing, although a good neighbor, he's nerdy.

Why the difference?

 

[frj1983]

People move into or build houses near railroad crossings then complain about all the noise trains make. Duh! "Quiet zones" may be presented as a panacea (or at least a big improvement), but doesn't the rumble of the engines and the cars also create a lot of noise? If there is a crossing and it has a bell or similar audible signal (which may even have to be enhanced to permit a "quiet zone" to exist), won't it also be very noisy?
If you don't like the sound of trains, don't live near a railroad track.

The sound of whistles are, obviously, much different from the sound of a rumbling engine and cars, and the two sounds carry in very different ways.

The warnings at crossings tend to be confined to the area around the crossing--that is, the area that needs the warning. The train that starts blowing a quarter mile away is often alerting a whole lot of people who have no need to be warned at all.

It's easy to say that if someone doesn't like the sound of a train he shouldn't live near tracks, but in reality the trains' whistles are designed to carry long distances, so "near the tracks" could end up covering the majority of a moderately sized city.

In the end it's a waste and bothersome to have trains blow their horns unnecessarily, and when warnings can be installed in intersections themselves, approach warnings become unnecessary. While you and I may like hearing the sound of a train blasting its horn in the middle of the night, plenty of other people don't. We should respect their opinions and err on the side of not intruding into their environment, especially for the sake of our enjoyment of the horn.

Strangely enough Volkris,

Engineers are not blowing their horns unnecessarily! About 4 years ago there were a spate of train/car collisions on the BNSF main line between Aurora and Chicago. A Chicago News team went for a ride with a series of engineers and what they filmed was startling. At almost every intersection cars ran around the gates as well as people on foot to get across before the train came by...with some really, really close calls.

The whole video was extremely scary to me and reinforced the need for those horns to blow. The Engineers are blowing their horns because people are ignoring the rules. At one intersection (where the most accidents happened) cameras were placed and $500 fines were levied for those who chose to ignore the rules...amazing how the accident level dropped to almost zero. People weren't worried about their lives (or the lives of those in the vehicle with them), but when their pocketbook was threatened, wow, was there compliance.

And I honestly believe that most people get used to that sound...it becomes part of the background and I can say this because for 3 years I lived right next to a busy freight line and I do mean right next to it...50 feet away!

 

[Guest]

Who got there first doesn't really matter. The meaningful point is that the railroads are causing a disturbance that significantly impacts other people who are just trying to live peacefully in their own property.
The fact that the people showed up after a railroad was operating actually means the railroad was able to interfere with others' properties for a long time for free. That represents a gift to the railroads; once others start enforcing their property rights it represents an end to a free ride, not some new charge.

If I buy an unoccupied plot of land to build a house and find that there has been a weekly party on the plot for years, it's within my rights to kick those kids out and start construction, right? That they were able to take advantage of someone else's property for years doesn't mean that their use of the land somehow takes precedence over the rights of the owner.

And yet that's what's being said here: the rights of homeowners to not be bothered by other peoples' activities outside their houses is somehow revoked just because those people have been making the bothersome noise for a while? Come on.

Actually, your logic might be flawed. Doesn't "Adverse possession" mean that even if you're using someone else's property for free and they don't object, after awhile, they no longer have the legal recourse of objecting to your use of it?

Are you a socialist?

 

[Guest]

I don't find it particularly troublesome to be in the corner of protecting peoples' property rights and saying that people shouldn't be bothered when in their own homes.
The jets are a fine example: the people SHOULD be paid for the loss of value. As in the case of the trains, the significant noise from the jets interferes with the ability of the people to live peacefully in their own homes. The easements do precisely what I suggested: the noise maker purchasing the right to affect land they don't own. As for the source of the money, the US government should be paying because it's the US government's operations causing the disturbance... just as the railroads should be paying since its their operations disturbing people and property that the railroads don't own.

Now let's be clear: I'm not pushing for the rules that say trains have to sound a warning at intersections at all. If you guys want to drop that rule then fine; I can't really comment on that. However, as it stands now the Feds have asserted that the warnings are necessary for safe operation of the trains, so I'm speaking to making the warnings as targeted and unbothersome as possible. Surely that's not a disagreeable notion!

And remember, I keep using the word "minimize" intentionally. We're not talking about silent trains here, only about asking the railroads to operate in a way that minimizes their impact on the communities.

... and exactly WHERE do you propose the nation's fighter jets should be stationed? Where should infantry units (who detonate things) be located? You can't possibly be serious in implying that 2100 people were ignorant that living near a Naval AIR station

would be noisy. I grew up a NASA kid whose MSFC test stand rattled our china frequently. Only arrogance would have me consider asking NASA to "quit it". There are some things that are greater than our individual pursuits.

I suggest that the level of quietness and control over your environment that you wish in your life is not possible outside a monastic existence in a cave.

 

[George Harris]

And I honestly believe that most people get used to that sound...it becomes part of the background and I can say this because for 3 years I lived right next to a busy freight line and I do mean right next to it...50 feet away!

Very true!

Several years ago we had some friends that lived on a small road that paralleled the Frisco main line southeast of Memphis. There were grade crossings nearby and the trains were generally 100 car freights moving 50 mph plus. We were visiting, standing in their front yard, which put us about 100 feet from the track. She was holding their 6 month old baby, who was asleep in her arms. Freight comes through, laying on the horn, with lots of other appropriate freight car noise. Conversation obviously ceases until the train passes. But, the significant point: The baby did not even twitch. Kept right on sleeping. The trains were part of her normal background noise ever since she developed functional ears before she was born.

You can get used to it. If you can't, then don't move clsoe to a railroad track.

Another point: Just because they run one or two low speed trains a day now, does not mean that will be true forever. Changes in traffic pattern may result in more trains, faster trains, longer trains, or all things on the list. Saying they can't be allowed to do this makes as much sense as them telling you that you can't furniture in your house.

 

[volkris]

Huh. Well, I guess with a spate of new people being involved I might as well repeat my position, since it's been so frequently misstated.

Nowhere am I suggesting that there should not be alerts at crossings, or that the jets not fly, or anything else of the sort. Instead, I simply hold the position that those making such noise should, first, work to minimize the noise they make, and second, compensate property owners upon whom the noise is inflicted and who find their property devalued as a result of the interference.

To me, a fundamental part of property rights is being free from, well, harassment inside one's own house. Whether it's coming from a guy with a bullhorn pointed at someone's living room window, or a garage band practicing at full volume across the street, or a party going on next door while a kid's parents are away, I find it to be a violation of rights when noise well above the level of the normal rumble of civilization pierces into your home without your permission. I don't think that perspective is that unreasonable.

Train horns are designed purposefully to be piercing and annoying--that's how they work!--so they certainly qualify as an annoyance above the background level. If a train operator has to intrude on peoples' peace in order to operate and cannot sufficiently minimize the impact of their noise, then the operator should work out a deal with the owners for permission to intrude.

The most important thing is not to just ignore property rights for the convenience of the train operator. As much as we all want to see rail succeed here, if we kick property rights to the curb for this cause, we probably won't be happy with the next cause that's deemed worthwhile enough to void the rights.

Anyway, like I said before, I think I said all I have to say on this matter. The discussion was just going in circles, so I thought it time to let it die. If anyone wants to continue discussing with me, feel free to send me private messages. Otherwise, I'm probably done.

 

[RRrich]

I simply hold the position that those making such noise should, first, work to minimize the noise they make, and second, compensate property owners upon whom the noise is inflicted and who find their property devalued as a result of the interference.

I think this is a key point - the devaluation of the property.

About 55 years ago my parents bought a house by a RR line - they knew it was by the RR - thats why the street ended there. If the presence of the RR devalued the property, I am sure such devaluation, if any, was reflected in the purchase price that my folks paid.

Does the RR owe my folks anything if they blow their whistle? Nah, any such inconvenience to my folks was covered by the "reduced" price that my folks paid.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

I have been on some trains when the engineer did not give the two short blasts of the horn which signals the train is about to move. Is that normal now. It used to be when at the station, as a pax you could tell when the train was about to depart due to the two blasts...........

The Railroad rule demanding two short on horn before movement has a amendment stating except at passenger stations, for some railroads.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

so volkris in your mind the railroad should pay me for blowing the horn if im near the tracks cause its a inconvenience for me. well then i should sue all the cars that come down my street and all the motorcycles that come down without a muffler sense its loud and its a inconvenience cause i can't hear the TV. gee im sure it will stand up in court. yes your honer im suing the RR for blowing there horn when going past my house cause its annoying even though there is a road crossing there.

 

[frequentflyer]

I have been on some trains when the engineer did not give the two short blasts of the horn which signals the train is about to move. Is that normal now. It used to be when at the station, as a pax you could tell when the train was about to depart due to the two blasts...........

The Railroad rule demanding two short on horn before movement has a amendment stating except at passenger stations, for some railroads.

Thanks Dutch...........So on certain railroads (BNSF?) its not required anymore...........Especially they do not do it in the NEC.

 

[MattW]

Property rights...what about the railroad's right to keep people off THEIR property by any means neccessary? Why not just close all grade crossings, bridges, and underpasses to railroads never have to blow their horns. You can't even be sure at over/underpasses because someone might just be hanging off.